2015 (9) TMI 1711 - HC - Indian Laws

Summon Order as additional accused to face trial in FIR, even if not named in FIR - HELD THAT - The complainant - Tara Chand while appearing as PW-1 has mentioned the names of the petitioners, who have caused injuries to his son Sonu with kick and fist blows. He has stated that Sonu was in love with Suman and the accused Rajender, Ram Piari, Ravi, Ravinder and Suman did not like this. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioners not only in the FIR but in the statement of the complainant as well. In the case of HARDEEP SINGH, MANJIT PAL SINGH, BABUBHAI BHIMABHAI BOKHIRIA, RAJENDRA SHARMA, RAVINDER KUMAR, TEJ PAL, JUNED PAHALWAN, RAJESH @ SANJAI, RAMDHAN MALI, TEJ SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB, STATE OF GUJARAT, STATE OF M.P., STATE OF HARYANA, STATE OF U.P., STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2014 (1) TMI 1878 - SUPREME COURT , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person can be summoned, as an additional accused, even if he is not named in the FIR or if named in the FIR but not chargesheeted or even if he has been discharged. The trial Court while taking into consideration the evidence on record, has rightly summoned the petitioners as additional accused, to face trial along with other co-accused - The present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision petition under Section 401 CrPC to set aside an order summoning petitioners as additional accused in a trial.
2. Discrepancy in the complainant's statement and cross-examination regarding the cause of injuries.
3. Legal principles regarding summoning a person as an additional accused based on evidence and FIR contents.
4. Application of Supreme Court judgments in similar cases to the present scenario.
5. Justification of summoning petitioners by the trial court and dismissal of the revision petition.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 401 CrPC seeking to overturn an order summoning them as additional accused in a trial based on an impugned order dated 24.8.2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. The petitioners argued that they were found innocent during the police investigation and that the summoning based on the complainant's version contradicted his earlier statement. The complainant's initial statement indicated that the injuries were due to a fall, not caused by the petitioners, as per the petitioners' counsel's argument citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.

However, Justice Hari Pal Verma noted that the law requires more than a prima facie case to summon a person as an additional accused, as established in Supreme Court cases like Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria v. State of Gujarat and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. The FIR explicitly mentioned the petitioners as perpetrators of the crime, and the complainant identified them as responsible for inflicting injuries on his son. Specific allegations were present against the petitioners in both the FIR and the complainant's statement, justifying their summoning as additional accused by the trial court.

Justice Verma upheld the trial court's decision to summon the petitioners based on the evidence on record, emphasizing that the summoning was justified as per legal principles and the specific allegations against the petitioners. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed for lacking merit on September 24, 2015.